The Trump campaign may have violated United State copyright law by selling merchandise featuring the former president’s mugshot, legal experts have warned.

  • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.rip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I understand what you’re saying, and normally I would agree with you.

    However, when Trump was mad at Twitter, he pushed hard to revoke Section 230, which protects social media platforms from the content their users post.

    Interestingly, he stopped caring about this as soon as he started his own social media platform, which he tried his best to steal without attribution from Mastodon.

    Now he is selling an image he does not own the copyright on. He can get fucked.

        • xkforce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Government entities should not hold the copyright to anything. The point of copyright was to incentivize artistic creation and protect creators from being taken advantage of by others. A mug shot doesn’t fall in the category of an artistic work and government employees that took that mug shot in the course of their duties dont need to be protected from others “taking advantage.” Tax payers paid them to do what they did and something tax payers paid for shouldn’t be treated as anything other than public domain. And the public domain is just that: public. Everyone can make use of it, even vermin like Trump. I fucking hate Trump. HOWEVER letting this nonsense slide because of that is not good. I would rather him be sent to prison for his crimes not punished for violating a copyright that I do not believe should exist.

          • Treczoks@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think in this case, a copyright is well-justified. They have to publish the mugshot for some reasons, but without the copyright, such a mugshot could be abused. Having the copyright at least enables the government to have some control over this.

            Just imagine having your mugshot taken, and it later turns out you are completely innocent. Still, if the mugshot was in the public domain, your neighbor with whom you have a dispute over the height of cut lawn could just print your face on every billboard in the country.

            • xkforce@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Except it is the accused spreading the photo of their own accord. The argument that theyre being protected by prosecuting them for copyright infringement doesn’t make sense.

              • Treczoks@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The argument that theyre being protected by prosecuting them for copyright infringement doesn’t make sense.

                No, and it doesn’t need to, as they are unrelated.

                They do own the copyright. The basic intention is to protect the innocent, but it does not rule out any other uses.

      • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.rip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue isn’t that the photo is copyrightable, it’s that a photo taken by a government employee, paid with tax dollars, taken with a camera purchased by tax payers is not copyrightable nor owned by Trump, and he can’t sell something he doesn’t have the right to sell.

        The photo is in the public domain, which is covered by copyright laws.

        • kvasir476@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is not how public domain works, and the article contends that the copyright is owned by the law enforcement agency that took the mugshot. If the photo was public domain it would be free for anyone to use as they see fit.